EVO: GTR vs RS drag race
06-17-2016, 08:38 AM
#16
Instructor
GT-R has 50 hp more and also weighs 600lbs more
AWD eats power, RWD is less parasitic
Traction is not an issue off the line for the RS, back in 2009 the GTR was the bad boy of launch control but in 2016 the RS with the motor over the rear wheels and the best tranny in the game had no problem getting going
makes sense to me
AWD eats power, RWD is less parasitic
Traction is not an issue off the line for the RS, back in 2009 the GTR was the bad boy of launch control but in 2016 the RS with the motor over the rear wheels and the best tranny in the game had no problem getting going
makes sense to me
NISSAN GT-R
2008 Nissan GT-RCompare Car
0-60 mph 3.4 | Quarter mile 11.6 2009 Nissan GT-R Compare Car
0-60 mph 3.2 | Quarter mile 11.4 2011 Nissan GT-R Compare Car
0-60 mph 3.2 2012 Nissan GT-R Compare Car
0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 11.1 2013 Nissan GT-R Track Pack Compare Car
0-60 mph 2.7 2014 Nissan GT-R Compare Car
0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 11.0 2015 Nissan GT-R NISMO Compare Car
0-60 mph 2.7 | Quarter mile 10.8 2017 Nissan GT-R Compare Car
0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 11.0 2018 Nissan GT-R R36 Hybrid
0-60 To Be Released
http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle...-60-mph-times/
http://accelerationtimes.com/models/...t-r-r35-550-ps
RS
http://accelerationtimes.com/models/...911-gt3-rs-991
http://fastestlaps.com/models/porsche-911-gt3-rs-991
06-17-2016, 11:11 AM
#17
LOL
I'm team Porsche, all the way. But 20k in a GT-R gets you a very very fast car, especially if you run E85, i wonder if you did this experiment who would win, but its so subjective and theres 1000 variables and options that could come into play.
My GT-R was brutal, literally too fast for me, i was going to get into trouble. The thing i hated the most was the low rev limit and short gears, sucked. I prefer NA!!
I'm team Porsche, all the way. But 20k in a GT-R gets you a very very fast car, especially if you run E85, i wonder if you did this experiment who would win, but its so subjective and theres 1000 variables and options that could come into play.
My GT-R was brutal, literally too fast for me, i was going to get into trouble. The thing i hated the most was the low rev limit and short gears, sucked. I prefer NA!!
Ranger
06-17-2016, 12:07 PM
#18
also, as i stated previously, the GT-R is relatively unchanged since 2008. sure it's had some power/chassis updates but it's an old car underneath. that Porsche, 8 years later, can slightly edge it in a straight line isn't really that impressive.
im a fan of both cars but the performance on offer in a GT-R for the money is impressive for a road car. bear in mind a slightly used 2015 GT-R can be had for ~$70k.
06-17-2016, 04:58 PM
#20
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by AC SATCO
I didn't analyze these results, but i think Nissan tests the GT-R and achieves their super numbers in the absolute most favorable conditions possible for the car, in the real world no one can get the stock GT-R to perform that well (i think)
while the RS and Porsche are clearly underrated and the car continually puts up better numbers in times and HP than the factory gives you.
just an opinion on how we got to this point in the discussion
while the RS and Porsche are clearly underrated and the car continually puts up better numbers in times and HP than the factory gives you.
just an opinion on how we got to this point in the discussion
06-17-2016, 10:35 PM
#21
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I don't seek justification for the results. I seek clarification; how could the results make sense when it came out against every test record registered.
NISSAN GT-R
2008 Nissan GT-RCompare Car
0-60 mph 3.4 | Quarter mile 11.6 2009 Nissan GT-R Compare Car
0-60 mph 3.2 | Quarter mile 11.4 2011 Nissan GT-R Compare Car
0-60 mph 3.2 2012 Nissan GT-R Compare Car
0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 11.1 2013 Nissan GT-R Track Pack Compare Car
0-60 mph 2.7 2014 Nissan GT-R Compare Car
0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 11.0 2015 Nissan GT-R NISMO Compare Car
0-60 mph 2.7 | Quarter mile 10.8 2017 Nissan GT-R Compare Car
0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 11.0 2018 Nissan GT-R R36 Hybrid
0-60 To Be Released
http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle...-60-mph-times/
http://accelerationtimes.com/models/...t-r-r35-550-ps
NISSAN GT-R
2008 Nissan GT-RCompare Car
0-60 mph 3.4 | Quarter mile 11.6 2009 Nissan GT-R Compare Car
0-60 mph 3.2 | Quarter mile 11.4 2011 Nissan GT-R Compare Car
0-60 mph 3.2 2012 Nissan GT-R Compare Car
0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 11.1 2013 Nissan GT-R Track Pack Compare Car
0-60 mph 2.7 2014 Nissan GT-R Compare Car
0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 11.0 2015 Nissan GT-R NISMO Compare Car
0-60 mph 2.7 | Quarter mile 10.8 2017 Nissan GT-R Compare Car
0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 11.0 2018 Nissan GT-R R36 Hybrid
0-60 To Be Released
http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle...-60-mph-times/
http://accelerationtimes.com/models/...t-r-r35-550-ps
Theoretically replicable. Not actually replicable.
It's almost like the sub 7 minute P1 'Ring time.
06-17-2016, 11:27 PM
#22
Nissan uses a 1' roll-out for their numbers, and even then they're hard to hit...Porsche gives us everyday-case numbers, Nissan best case with a little head start.
06-23-2016, 02:51 PM
#27
You should see the youtube comments about this video...The GTR fanboys seem to think that the tires are the one the reasons why the GTR lost, some think the traction control wasn't on, someone even thinks the driver was too fat and caused the GTR to lose, comical.
06-23-2016, 03:24 PM
#29
Originally Posted by 911Dreamer
Nothing from Nissan is actually replicable when it comes to testing the GTR
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/s...r-1347840.html
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/e...t-2822697.html
